Confy Guide

Below are additions to the CRIMSON'S Confidential Guide to Freshman Courses, the information for which arrived too late to include them in the regular edition of the Confy Guide.

These articles are intended to be advisory only, and certainly not the last word. Previous Harvard classes have found them helpful in choosing courses, section men, and fields of study.

Humanities 3

CONTENTS: Individual and social values are studied through the literary forms of history and drama in the fall term, fiction and philosophy in the spring.

SECTION MEN: The course is given completely in sections--three weekly, and '55 advises that a good section man is the most important factor in making the course enjoyable. Bullitt is described as an "inspiring" lecturer, able to control discussions--an important factor in such a course since class discussion often tend to run away with themselves. One critic said that, although he lectured brilliantly and taught students to think for themselves, he monopolized classes too completely, inspiring a fear of individual participation. Lord won plaudits for the great interest he took in his students, his competence in handling discussions, and his insight into the course readings. A combination of scholarship and humility drew praise for head section man Sweeny. He is described as an "ideal" section man, a "teacher in the truest sense," while a critic thought him too tolerant of some of the opinions offered. On the other hand, students thought Levenson unenthusiastic, often boring, and felt that he usually spoke too far above the class' level. '55 objected to the fact that he did too much talking, with little encouragement of participation. Although Stempel was far from inspiring, most students appreciated the vast amount of scholarship he brought to bear on the course discussions. He was not, however, readily able to encourage class discussion. Wilbur was considered rather dull, and drew criticism for his tendency to monopolize discussions. Singer, after an unenthusiastic reception in the fall term, was lauded for his half-lecture, half-discussion sections; many, however, thought him too esoteric. Straus, although not inspiring, "knew his stuff" and was considered very competent. A sense of humor and a great deal of erudition won praise for Sutcliffe, but some found him a poor discussion leader. Ewald is described as eager to aid his students, but "too tolerant of some of the more ridiculous ideas offered."

READING: Humanities 3 is a "great books" course and so depends completely upon the reading. '55 was quite impressed with the lengthy list of classics which makes up the reading: students found it interesting as well as very necessary. The average time spent on the assigned works was 5 to 6 hours weekly. Most popular among the books were "The Brothers Karamazov," "The Red and the Black," "The Republic," and the plays of Sophocles, Shaw, and Shakespeare. On the other hand, '55 little enjoyed the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, while many disliked Pascal and Nietzsche. Generally students leaned towards the drama and the novel and, occasionally, toward philosophy, in their likes.

PAPERS: Two papers are assigned in each term, covering the four main dividsions of the course. '55 spent 12 to 15 hours on each one, but was almost evenly divided on their value: some thought they added a great deal, others felt they were merely another vehicle which permitted one to ramble on about some irrelevant idea, adding little unity to the course. Several students complained that the papers were graded chiefly on the basis of style rather than content.

EXAMINATIONS: The two hour exams were considered extremely tough while the finals were of average difficulty. A good deal of thought and individual opinion was required. Marks varied considerably, of course, among section men, but the grading was thought to be quite fair.

COMMENTS: A good section man, plus a desire to read widely and deeply, '55 believes, can make Humanities 3 one of the best Gen Ed courses open to freshmen. Some students thought, however, that the reading list alone makes the course more than worth while, and that a good section man is not absolutely essential. It is a difficult course, with a good deal of rough reading and some pretty incomprehensible section discussions, but '55 thought it worth the time and thought required. Some critics found it too dependent on the value of the section man himself, or too disorganized, or too far above the freshman level. But the almost universal opinion was: a good course.